From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] bonding: eliminate RTNL assertion spew Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:13:55 -0500 Message-ID: <45A421B3.4020301@garzik.org> References: <20070109225900.GA11755@gospo.rdu.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: fubar@us.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:38643 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932509AbXAIXN7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jan 2007 18:13:59 -0500 To: Andy Gospodarek In-Reply-To: <20070109225900.GA11755@gospo.rdu.redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Andy Gospodarek wrote: > -void bond_alb_handle_active_change(struct bonding *bond, struct slave *new_slave) > +void bond_alb_handle_active_change(struct bonding *bond, struct slave *new_slave, int rtnl_locked) > { > struct slave *swap_slave; > int i; Although this is not a direct NAK (haven't read the full patch yet), conditional locking behavior like this is /very/ fragile, and in Linux is generally discouraged. Vendor drivers in particular have a history of constantly getting this wrong, and it makes locking more difficult to review. Jeff